One of DCP’s example “highly intelligent” believers embarrassed in recent debate

[Rivendale]

Appealing? Unless there is some kind of eternal motivation that we are unaware of I think eternity would get boring. Maybe the first few thousand years would be interesting but then what? The Mormon view of heaven is hideous. Eternal worship? Missionary work?

I an old enough to think on occasion that life after death is very difficult to make sense of. Any picture is a cartoon at best.

I have not heard the idea that missionary work was involved. Is this some sort of extension of this new fangled idea of senior missions? In life after death is God some sort of secret, go to the folks hanging out and say, "Have you heard of Joseph Smith?"

Baptisms for the dead give people the opportunity to accept the gospel in the afterlife. Someone has to ask if they accept or not. Also there are scriptures talking about Jesus preaching in spirit prison. Interestingly I wonder if there are missionaries for different faiths? God hides twice?

[Gadianton]

The short video of the above exchange is available here:

Fantastic. Before I had a chance to watch the video I thought about Alex O'connor and lo and behold...

The list DCP provided was either irrelevant (pre-Darwin philosophers don't count) or the usual Christian apologists. I'm sure there are much better examples of "intelligent believers" out there than this questionable list. In general, his Christian apologists aren't very good. Plantinga did score a point against atheism on the problem of evil, but anything else he's ever said is nonsense, as is everything Swinburne has ever said.

Christian philosopher apologists had an easy game for a long time. For one, the getting was good for stardom for a Christian willing to burn their Phd in service of apologetics. And the field was wide open with no competition, because after Bertrand Russell and AJ Ayer, atheists abandoned philosophy and only cared about science. Dismissing theology and philosophy seemed to be a badge of honor. Carl Sagan is the perfect example. Even the New Atheists had zero interest in the riches Christian apologists were raking in from their hordes of supporters, with Sam Harris as the closest exception. Until Sam Harris and Sean Carrol, no atheist had thought about philosophy since Bertrand Russell. Matt Dillahunty is supposedly brilliant and he's not a science guy necessarily, but he's all spur-of-the-moment thinking, he doesn't appear to really know anything and he has some horrible arguments also.

There has been this massively asymmetric battlefield where who wins the debate is seriously open to interpretation. In the early YouTube days, I'd get sick of watching it. You'd have some Christian apologist who studied philosophy paired against some science guy who has no idea what philosophy is. The Christian guy would know enough about science to hobble along, but the atheist scientist would know nothing about theology or philosophy, assuming it's irrelevant, and get blindsided. For instance, the science guy will come out of the gate asking, "where's the evidence!" and ready to talk evolution and earth science. The Christian guy calls into question the limits of rationality. Now, which is more important in life, earth science or postmodernism? Earth science for sure, but, if you're in a debate and you take the bait on a topic you've never thought about before, it might get uncomfortable. These Christians would sometimes need to give explanations of the topic at hand and guide the atheist through the stakes of the argument, and that alone, made the Christian look like the superior intellect to the supporters.

But, with a guy like Alex, that's all over. Too bad for atheists since these old apologists have already made their money and secured their fame. But the easy days of a Christian philosopher going into a debate an atheist who has no idea what the pro-God talking points are among Christian intellectuals seem to be over with a new wave of atheists who get philosophy degrees and are on an equal playing field now.

[huckelberry]

The short video of the above exchange is available here:

Fantastic. Before I had a chance to watch the video I thought about Alex O'connor and lo and behold...

The list DCP provided was either irrelevant (pre-Darwin philosophers don't count) or the usual Christian apologists. I'm sure there are much better examples of "intelligent believers" out there than this questionable list. In general, his Christian apologists aren't very good. Plantinga did score a point against atheism on the problem of evil, but anything else he's ever said is nonsense, as is everything Swinburne has ever said.

Christian philosopher apologists had an easy game for a long time. For one, the getting was good for stardom for a Christian willing to burn their Phd in service of apologetics. And the field was wide open with no competition, because after Bertrand Russell and AJ Ayer, atheists abandoned philosophy and only cared about science. Dismissing theology and philosophy seemed to be a badge of honor. Carl Sagan is the perfect example. Even the New Atheists had zero interest in the riches Christian apologists were raking in from their hordes of supporters, with Sam Harris as the closest exception. Until Sam Harris and Sean Carrol, no atheist had thought about philosophy since Bertrand Russell. Matt Dillahunty is supposedly brilliant and he's not a science guy necessarily, but he's all spur-of-the-moment thinking, he doesn't appear to really know anything and he has some horrible arguments also.

There has been this massively asymmetric battlefield where who wins the debate is seriously open to interpretation. In the early YouTube days, I'd get sick of watching it. Y ou'd have some Christian apologist who studied philosophy paired against some science guy who has no idea what philosophy is. The Christian guy would know enough about science to hobble along, but the atheist scientist andwould know nothing about theology or philosophy, assuming it's irrelevant, and get blindsided. For instance, the science guy will come out of the gate asking, "where's the evidence!" and ready to talk evolution and earth science. The Christian guy calls into question the limits of rationality. Now, which is more important in life, earth science or postmodernism? Earth science for sure, but, if you're in a debate and you take the bait on a topic you've never thought about before, it might get uncomfortable. These Christians would sometimes need to give explanations of the topic at hand and guide the atheist through the stakes of the argument, and that alone, made the Christian look like the superior intellect to the supporters.

But, with a guy like Alex, that's all over. Too bad for atheists since these old apologists have already made their money and secured their fame. But the easy days of a Christian philosopher going into a debate an atheist who has no idea what the pro-God talking points are among Christian intellectuals seem to be over with a new wave of atheists who get philosophy degrees and are on an equal playing field now.

Gadianton, I think you make some good observations about debates. I am puzzled by the blanket condemnation of Plantigna and Swinburne. Are they rationally incoherent or are you saying they are fundamentally wrong in thinking God exists?

[Rivendale]

The short video of the above exchange is available here:

Fantastic. Before I had a chance to watch the video I thought about Alex O'connor and lo and behold...

The list DCP provided was either irrelevant (pre-Darwin philosophers don't count) or the usual Christian apologists. I'm sure there are much better examples of "intelligent believers" out there than this questionable list. In general, his Christian apologists aren't very good. Plantinga did score a point against atheism on the problem of evil, but anything else he's ever said is nonsense, as is everything Swinburne has ever said.

Christian philosopher apologists had an easy game for a long time. For one, the getting was good for stardom for a Christian willing to burn their Phd in service of apologetics. And the field was wide open with no competition, because after Bertrand Russell and AJ Ayer, atheists abandoned philosophy and only cared about science. Dismissing theology and philosophy seemed to be a badge of honor. Carl Sagan is the perfect example. Even the New Atheists had zero interest in the riches Christian apologists were raking in from their hordes of supporters, with Sam Harris as the closest exception. Until Sam Harris and Sean Carrol, no atheist had thought about philosophy since Bertrand Russell. Matt Dillahunty is supposedly brilliant and he's not a science guy necessarily, but he's all spur-of-the-moment thinking, he doesn't appear to really know anything and he has some horrible arguments also.

There has been this massively asymmetric battlefield where who wins the debate is seriously open to interpretation. In the early YouTube days, I'd get sick of watching it. You'd have some Christian apologist who studied philosophy paired against some science guy who has no idea what philosophy is. The Christian guy would know enough about science to hobble along, but the atheist scientist would know nothing about theology or philosophy, assuming it's irrelevant, and get blindsided. For instance, the science guy will come out of the gate asking, "where's the evidence!" and ready to talk evolution and earth science. The Christian guy calls into question the limits of rationality. Now, which is more important in life, earth science or postmodernism? Earth science for sure, but, if you're in a debate and you take the bait on a topic you've never thought about before, it might get uncomfortable. These Christians would sometimes need to give explanations of the topic at hand and guide the atheist through the stakes of the argument, and that alone, made the Christian look like the superior intellect to the supporters.

But, with a guy like Alex, that's all over. Too bad for atheists since these old apologists have already made their money and secured their fame. But the easy days of a Christian philosopher going into a debate an atheist who has no idea what the pro-God talking points are among Christian intellectuals seem to be over with a new wave of atheists who get philosophy degrees and are on an equal playing field now.

I am curious as to which arguments Matt Dillahunty makes you find horrible?

[Philo Sofee]

When I was young, I too felt that motivation borne out of wishful thinking that we never ended. As I am growing old, and feel my mind growing tired as well as my body, I think a "lights out" at death is more appealing.

That’s interesting. I’m not there yet. I still find the notion of “something” after death appealing. But I can’t see any evidence that there is, and my tolerance for the irrational and illogical is still nil.

I definitely love the life after death scenario.

[Moksha]

I don’t blame DCP for not doing debates anymore.

Dr. Peterson would wipe the floor with debate opponents. He was one of the longest-serving professors at BYU with degrees in Arabic, Reformed Egyptian, and Apologetics. Ted Kaczynski was one of his students, but he did not have degrees in those three areas.

[Gadianton]

Are they rationally incoherent or are you saying they are fundamentally wrong in thinking God exists?

Plantinga's idea of belief as basic is pretty horrible. I don't think anyone is fundamentally wrong in thinking God exists. In the case of Plantinga it's like a gifted lawyer taking on a hard client without many options. In the case of others it's more like their knowledge is pretty basic and they've made big names for themselves on basic material. Like I say, it's not entirely their fault, their audience is gullible and big name detractors like Lawrence Krauss go into battle without knowing the first thing about religion. So they've had an easy run overall. I'm saying that if it becomes lucrative for young atheists to go get philosophy or even theology degrees and start YouTube channels they will need to up their game.

[Gadianton]

I am curious as to which arguments Matt Dillahunty makes you find horrible?

His argument that abortion is a woman's choice simpliciter is bad.